Re: [stir] Review of: draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-10

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

I don't know how to start a working group discussion about "many and
serious problems." Like I said, my first response to your stir-passport
review covered what I considered to be its most significant issues, which
were largely about the fundamental architecture and the document
organization (that is, the modularity with other specifications).

I just read the whole thing again. The remainder of your comments are
overwhelmingly stylistic, editorial or philosophical. The many places
where you call out points like "insecure" vs. "unsecure" are stylistic in
nature. At one point you say as an aside, "FWIW, this isn't quibbling.  It
is an example of the difference between regular prose writing and direct,
specification language." You make a number of organizational points about
where information should appear in the document, like in 3.1 how "the
section starts with structure detail and ends with purpose. This should be
swapped." Pervasive comments like "what is a persona?" or "identity
string? What does this mean?" are philosophical or terminological in
nature. We see these sometimes as technical objections, like when you
question what "delta time" means. You point out places where more
citations to existing RFCs would be appropriate. You question why some
things are SHOULDs and not MUSTs.

Are comments like this useful and actionable? They are, as I said in my
initial response to your review. Should we implement fixes for most of
these points? We should, as I said. But are these non-trivial, blocking
issues that require working group discussion to resolve? I must be missing
something. I'll ask again. If below the line in your stir-passport review
there are specific non-trivial blocking issues that warrant the attention
of the working group, please identify what they are. I honestly don't know
what working group discussion you think needs to happen.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 8/9/16, 7:12 AM, "stir on behalf of Dave Crocker"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>On 8/9/2016 6:52 AM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
>> and I promise that Chris and I will go through and implement
>> them where appropriate.
>
>
>This is the nugget of the process problem I was anticipating and seeking
>to resolve:
>
>    This is a working group, not a cheerleading section for some
>authors.  In the IETF work is supposed to reflect the understanding and
>agreement of the working group.  The nature and extent of the problems
>I'm seeing with these documents suggests a significant lack of that
>shared effort.
>
>    In some cases, a document really comes from and remains primarily
>the souls of the authors and the wg simply provides a surrounding sanity
>check.  That's fine, when the sanity check is meaningful.  But these
>documents don't have that kind of history or nature.
>
>    A process in which the authors take extensive comments and go into a
>back room and decide on their own what to do with them is a deviation
>from the pure IETF model.  It is supported as an IETF process efficiency
>hack only when there is rock solid working group synchronicity with the
>authors.  Based on the nature and extent of the problems I'm seeing with
>these documents, that synchronicity is lacking.
>
>
>
>In sum:  The reviews I am doing are noting many and serious problems.
>They need working group discussion, not back-room author filtering, with
>selective public comments by the authors.
>
>
>
>d/
>
>-- 
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>stir mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir